Sumesh A.N vs C.O. Antony, Chathely House, Kaduppassery (PO), Kannikkara Desom Thrissur District, Anto V.D and The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, P.B. No. 27, Manappat Building North Nada, Kodungallur

Justice Pius C. Kuriakose, J

An L.D. Clerk in the service of an NSS College who sustained comminuted and segmental fracture both bones of right leg, Hemarthosis right knee, Hematoma right thigh in a road traffic accident complains that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation. He claimed a total amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation and the Tribunal awarded him only Rs. 1,36,911/- . According to him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is grossly inadequate. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate whereas the argument of the Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company was that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award. We feel that there is some genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant that he was not awarded adequate compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal adopted Rs. 4,000/- to be his monthly income for the purpose of calculating disability compensation as well as loss of earnings. However, it is seen that for calculating loss of earnings the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 1,000/- per month towards his personal expenses. This in our view was erroneous. The learned Tribunal ought to have adopted the sum of Rs. 4,000/- per mensem itself for calculating compensation for loss of earnings for 14 months. When so calculated the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of Rs. 14,000/- towards loss of earnings. We award to the appellant the above amount. On going through the award we are convinced having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained that the appellant was not awarded adequate compensation towards pain and suffering. On that count, we award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more. So also we feel that the appellant was not awarded adequate compensation for loss of amenities in life. We award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards loss of amenities. The Doctor in Ext.A1 disability certificate certified that the appellant suffered disability of about 15%. The Doctor was examined as PW1. He proved Ext.A1. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Tribunal could have awarded 25% itself as the disability for the purpose of calculating disability compensation. We feel that the learned Tribunal instead of taking 10% could have taken 12% as the correct disability suffered by the appellant in view of the gravity of the injuries suffered. When disability compensation is re-calculated that way the appellant will become eligible for an additional sum of Rs. 2,880/- towards disability compensation. On going through the award we are convinced that the appellant has not been awarded adequate compensation for bystander''s expenses. Bystander''s expenses could have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day. When bystander''s expenses is re- calculated in that way the appellant will become eligible for Rs. 1,300/- which we award to the appellant.

Thus in total we award to the appellant a total amount of Rs. 28,180/- over and above what is awarded by the Tribunal. The above amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the Tribunal in its award. The appeal is allowed. No costs.